Fill in missing details of the graphql-transport-ws protocol specification #342
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
kristjanvalur
force-pushed
the
pr01
branch
9 times, most recently
from
7547e47
to
92f576c
Compare
kristjanvalur
changed the title
- Clarify lifetime of IDs. - Clarify simultaneous `Complete` operations - Explain when unknown / completed IDs must be ignored - Expand examples
enisdenjo
requested changes
Mar 25, 2022
Co-authored-by: Denis Badurina <badurinadenis@gmail.com>
|
I'll update my PR according to your suggestions. |
|
I think I have addressed all points now. |
enisdenjo
approved these changes
Mar 25, 2022
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 5.7.0 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
this Pr makes suggested changes to clarify some aspects of the protocol specificaiton, as I understand it.. If my understanding is wrong, that is helpful too and I will be happy to amend the PR accordingly. But as it is, it is a bit ambiguous and leaves much to the implementors to decide.
I touch on the following points:
Completeoperationserrorvsnextmessages to report errorsSee also #340 where I mention some of the above issues.